I ask Greg Fields for something substantive, and he gives me Lloyd-Jones mush. Well, Greg, at least I know what your "calvinism" is.

> The grace of God saves us in spite of ourselves. That is
> Calvinist! If you
> say, as a Calvinist, that a man is saved by his understanding of
> doctrine you
> are denying Calvinism. He is not.

Have you ever met anyone who believes that he is saved by his understanding of doctrine? Or is this just the common blather of pseudo-Christians who do not believe that all regenerate persons believe the doctrines of the person and work of Christ?

> We are all saved in spite of
> what we are in
> every respect. Thus it comes to pass that men who can be so
> muddled, because
> they bring in their own human reason, are saved men and
> Christians, as all
> of us are, because it is 'all of the grace of God' and in spite of us.

Oh, okay, Mr. Lloyd-Jones (and Mr. Fields) -- so when God saves someone, that person can believe in just about anything regarding God and Christ and religion in general. Hey, that Roman Catholic who believes that Mary is co-redemptrix is saved in spite of what he believes. He's just so muddled about the doctrine of redemption, and you know, a man isn't saved by his understanding of redemption. Hey, that Jehovah's Witness who denies Christ's deity is saved in spite of what he believes. He's just muddled about the doctrine of Christology. Hey, that Arminian who believes that Christ died for everyone and thus believes that salvation is conditioned on the sinner is saved in spite of what he believes. He's just so muddled about the doctrines of salvation and imputation and justification and grace and the atonement. Yeah, the grace of God has saved them in spite of themselves. They can go on just believing whatever, dishonoring every attribute of God's redemptive character, ignorant of and not submitted to the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel, spitting in God's face, blaspheming His name, believing and promoting the lie of the Devil, and still be saved.

What wickedness. Lloyd-Jones spoke peace to Arminians, and this is the kind of reasoning he used to justify his filth. I guess you want to be in the sty right along with him, Greg.

> Lastly, Calvinism without Methodism tends to produce a joyless,
> hard, not to
> say a harsh and cold type of religion. I am saying that this is a
> tendency.
> All this results from intellectualism of course; and the more the
> intellect
> dominates the less joy there will be, and a hardness, and a
> coldness, and a
> harshness, and a bigotry tend to come in.

Ooooh -- the "intellectualism" boogey-man! The more the intellect dominates, the less joy there will be! So let's all be as ignorant as we can be about doctrine -- we certainly wouldn't want to be joyless! And while we're at it, let's go down and meet with those people whom Lloyd-Jones considered full of Christian joy -- the Charismatics. Greg, ya wanna see how joyful all the idiots swinging from the chandeliers are? Hey, they don't know doctrine, but the less they know, the more joyful they are! Oh they have a joy, but not according to knowledge. But you and Lloyd-Jones would say that a Christian doesn't need knowledge of the person and work of Christ. He just needs that intellect-less JOY. Wheeeeee!!!

> Calvinism of necessity leads to an
> emphasis upon the action and the activity of God the Holy Spirit.

WRONG. True Christianity leads to an emphasis upon the action and activity of God the SON, who established a righteousness that demands the salvation of all whom He represented. The Holy Spirit does not testify of Himself; the Holy Spirit testifies of CHRIST. Here are Lloyd-Jones's charismatic sympathies cropping up again.

> So Calvinism of
> necessity leads to experiences, and to great emphasis upon
> experience;

Yeah, you guys would elevate experiences above God's Testimony. You would speak peace to an Arminian who says, "Well, I KNOW I'm saved, because I was under such a great conviction of my sins and I sweated all night and felt a heavy load upon my soul, and by morning, my burden was lifted as I felt Christ take my sin away." You would say that someone who is currently a "Calvinist" but who says that he remained an Arminian for a time after he was regenerated is a true Christian because of some experience he had. Ah, throw that knowledge of doctrine all away. What use is it anyway? EXPERIENCE, now that's the ticket. Someone can be saved who is ignorant of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel as long as he has EXPERIENCED "Christ." What hogwash.

> Then, in turn, as I have been trying to say, true Calvinism is bound to
> emphasize the element of revival, the 'givenness' of the activity
> of God, the
> visitations of God. It is only since the decline of Calvinism
> that revivals
> have become less and less frequent. The more powerful Calvinism
> is the more
> likely you are to have a spiritual revival and re-awakening.

Yeah, EXPERIENCES and REVIVALS. "Revivals" have flourished where true gospel doctrine has either been absent or seriously compromised.

> it is
> also the very essence of Calvinistic Methodism.

Calvinistic Methodism produced such "giants of the faith" as George Whitefield, an unregenerate man who spoke peace to Wesley and asked sinners to open the door of their hearts to the knocking Jesus. So this is your "calvinism," eh, Greg?

In another post, you quoted an article that included the following statement:

<<Arminians who have a gracious, humble spirit should not be treated as unbelievers.>>

So this is what you believe, Greg? Those who do not believe in the atoning blood of Christ should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who believe that their salvation is conditioned on themselves should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who spit in the face of my Lord Jesus Christ, trampling Him underfoot, treating His blood as if it were nothing but a general amnesty for all if sinners would do just their part? These should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who call God a liar, who think that God punishes sinners whose sins have already been punished? Those who say that Christ's blood was shed for those burning in hell? Those who say that the difference between heaven and hell is NOT the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone but IS the work of the sinner? THESE PEOPLE should not be treated as unbelievers? Those who do not believe that God is a just God and a Savior? Those who have no idea how God is just to justify the ungodly? Those who worship a god who cannot save? Those who abide not in the doctrine of Christ? Those who have a form of godliness but deny its power? Those who make a mockery of God's redemptive glory? THESE WICKED BLASPHEMERS should not be treated as unbelievers? These LOVERS OF SELF, these SELF-RIGHTEOUS RELIGIONISTS whose best efforts at religion and morality ("who have a gracious, humble spirit") are nothing more than DEAD WORKS, FRUIT UNTO DEATH, OPEN IDOLATRY? THESE PEOPLE, Greg? These people who BELIEVE NOT THE GOSPEL OF SALVATION CONDITIONED ON THE ATONING BLOOD AND IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST ALONE?

Your "calvinism," indeed. God save us from such "calvinism."

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc D. Carpenter

http://www.outsidethecamp.org

Soli Deo Gloria,

Marc

Home

E-mails, Forums, and Letters